Prev
Next

Gillard is up the creek in dire need of a paddle

Dean Jaensch

by Dean Jaensch

08 Sep 05:35am

Must Reads

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses - this is a caption

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

14

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this - this is a caption

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

50

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it? - this is a caption

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

121

Filed under: Asylum Seekers, Julia Gillard, Malaysian Solution, Nauru, Refugees

103 comments

A straightforward decision by the High Court: the government’s “Malaysian solution” was illegal. But that simple decision is surrounded by a kaleidoscope of complexities, conundrums and challenges. Julia Gillard has to find a way through the maze, and come out of it with a policy which will not cause key elements of her support base to rebel against her.

Cartoon: Mark Knight

The maze is complex indeed. The Greens are demanding that all asylum seekers be vetted in Australia. This would be a massive “pull” factor, which goes against the oft-stated aim of the government to stop the boats.

But with the Greens holding a balance of power in the Senate, and one Green, Adam Bandt, holding the tenure of the government with his single vote in the House, there will have to be some real ducking and weaving.

Unfortunately for the Labor Cabinet, the left faction(s) of the party are equally convinced that any Pacific solution is not on. The caucus room contains a solid, albeit minority view, which is increasingly hostile on this issue, and increasingly annoyed with the directions, policies and failures of their government.

Julia Gillard’s criticism of the High Court, and especially the Chief Justice, can hardly be justified when the advice from her own Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is reported to have told her that the Malaysian solution did not accord with the Migration Act.

It also seriously annoyed another key player. Andrew Wilkie, who is already holding the government to ransom over poker machines, described the Prime Minister’s comments as disrespectful to the separation of the executive and the judiciary.   

She has to produce a victory on this one. There is a long list of policy failures which go back to the Rudd government. Another one would probably be the last straw. But she has more than an uphill battle, and is losing the asylum seeker case in the court of public opinion. On Monday, Newspoll reported a damning answer to the question concerning whether the government was doing a good or bad job on the issue of asylum seekers.

The answers were catastrophic for the Labor government, with 78 per cent stating it was doing a bad job; only 12 per cent said “good”. More damaging was the response from Labor voters – 64 per cent said “bad”.

The government has also been given advice that the High Court decision probably rules out all sites for a “Pacific solution”. So where can she go to try to turn this awful mess into a policy?

The most logical method is that if the Act is the problem, then move rapidly to amend the Act so that it does allow a legal off-shore solution. But this would not bring support from the Greens, and the left of the Labor party might actually stand firm on its principle. So the attempt would be defeated in both houses of parliament.

Enter a White Knight! Tony Abbott has stated that he is willing to discuss the matter with Julia Gillard, and attempt to achieve a bipartisan solution. This would sideline the Greens out of the equation. Of course politics comes into this magnanimous offer.

If any bipartisan policy emerges, then it would require Julia Gillard to climb down a considerable distance, especially in terms of the confrontational rhetoric she has consistently used against anything proposed by Tony Abbott.

On the other hand, if a bipartisan position is reached, it might even become infectious on other policies. And that would be something positive.

But without some agreement across Labor and Coalition, the complications seem insoluble. Hence if anyone knows the email address of King Solomon, Julia Gillard needs him. 

Most commented

429Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
333Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
265Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

103 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      05:41am | 08/09/11

      Tony Abbott’s offer of bipartisanship on this issue puts the lie to the claim that he can only say “no”. I wonder if Gillard can step up to the plate?

      In the last election, 88% of the public voted for parties that promised offshore processing. There’s a huge popular mandate for it, and both parties should get cracking.

      Reply

    • George says:

      08:06am | 08/09/11

      Hey Erick:

      Aside from the obvious what really is the reason why the Pacific Solution is not being considered?

      There has to be an objective reason why the ALP is rejecting it prior to the High Court decision regarding the failed ALP Malaysian swap deal?

      Your opinion is valued.  Cheers!

    • old fart says:

      08:08am | 08/09/11

      Erick I disagree, the pendulum has swung back, people are fed up with the political point scoring using innocent people as pawns to do so.  The overwhelming majority wan onshore processing and for us to live up to our international obligations.  Abbott is only trying to manoeuver gillard into a corner. Franly I’m fed up with both major parties on this

    • TChong says:

      08:12am | 08/09/11

      Eck
      You are so easily influenced by foreigners.
      The Oz expression is ‘’ step up to the crease, ( or wicket) ”

    • Erick says:

      08:40am | 08/09/11

      @old fart - Just because you want to believe something, that doesn’t mean it’s true. The fact is that in 2010 the vast majority of Australians voted for parties that offered offshore processing.

      @TChong - Don’t be so xenophobic!

    • acotrel says:

      08:43am | 08/09/11

      @Erick
      Bart Simpson’s grandfather has been around long enough to see a rabbott move at a kilometre distance.  Which mushroom have you been hiding under ?

    • Max, of Rocky says:

      09:04am | 08/09/11

      @ old fart

      From one old fart to another, I agree with you.  I was not happy with the Howard solution but it worked.

      This has to be fixed now.

    • MarkS says:

      09:06am | 08/09/11

      @Old Fart
      Try the underwhelming minority wan (sic) onshore processing and for us to overdo our international obligations. Then you may be within a cooee of being correct.

      The simple fact of the matter is the vast majority of Australians will not stand for frauds violating our nation. Australia is our home, we are willing to share it with those we invite in, but never with those who force themselves opon us.

    • Bruce says:

      09:55am | 08/09/11

      Its pretty clear in voter land that we want off shore processing. Those that want processing to be done in Australia, put up your hand and let the government know that your suburb is place to undertake the on shore processing program. That will certainly help speed things up !

    • Max Redlands says:

      10:06am | 08/09/11

      @ old fart “The overwhelming majority wan (sic.) onshore processing”

      Do you have any evidence to back this up?

      I think Erick’s assessment (and the basis of it) is far more accurate.

      If “stoppping the boats”, for whatever reason - be it humanitarian (lives are risked and people are exploited) to the xenophobic (help! help! we’re be being invaded) - then the offshore solution is the only way to go.

      Further the on shore solution puts the onus on the wrong party. If people wish to come here seeking asylum they should establish their bona fides in this regard before being allowed entry as opposed to letting them all in and it then falling upon us to determine who is “fair dinkum” or not. The on shore solution cheapens and weakens our national soveriegnty.

    • RyaN says:

      10:17am | 08/09/11

      @old fart: when have we not met our international obligations. As for your clearly false claim on the opinion of the overwhelming majority, I am sure that the overwhelming majority don’t want to see people being slammed against the cliffs again like you are proposing continues.

    • andrew says:

      10:24am | 08/09/11

      At the 2007 election 88% voted for an ETS. We didn’t get that so maybe we wont get offshore processing.

    • Glen says:

      11:03am | 08/09/11

      Problem is andrew, the current polls show that the web of misinformation and lies around the ETS show that the overwhelming majority of Australians disagree with it. To think that Labor won’t to buy Carbon credits from markets that are riddled with corruption is asounding.

    • Richard says:

      12:22pm | 08/09/11

      Onshore processing/Off-shore processing. Mandatory detention/no mandatory detention. From a purely pragmatic real politik point of view, the issue is entirely moot.

      Onshore processing is probably cheaper, but off-shore processing affords the opportunity for our government to conduct some foreign aid assistance in a lateral kind of way to Nauru and PNG, its a bit of a muchness.

      But regarding the real crux of the matter, i.e., in order to stop the boats, simple economics dictates that for as long as there is a supply of a valuable commodity (i.e. potential Permanent Residency in Australia for Irregular Maritime Arrivals), there will be demand.

      Therefore, as far as I can see it, the only way to prevent people from risking their lives in a treacherous sea voyage, the only way to put opportunistic people smugglers out of business, is to bring back Temporary Protection Visas. Its economics: if you remove the incentive, you curtail the demand. Attempting to deal with this issue in any other way is merely fiddling at the edges.

    • Andrew says:

      04:19pm | 08/09/11

      Glen says: 11:03am | 08/09/11

      Problem is andrew, the current polls show that the web of misinformation and lies around the ETS show that the overwhelming majority of Australians disagree with it. To think that Labor won’t to buy Carbon credits from markets that are riddled with corruption is asounding.

      If we were guided by polls most reforms would never get done as most people hate change. GST being one example, but it was for the betterment of the nation.

    • Macca says:

      06:36am | 08/09/11

      There is no bipartisanship here, simply an opportunity for Tony Abbott to demonstrate the Coalition’s ability to deliver of immigration policy, contrasting a government characterized by multiple policy failings on this matter alone.

      Reply

    • Nathan says:

      07:27am | 08/09/11

      Ok dealing with just the Immigration issue here and nothing else how can Tony Abbott demonstrate the Coalition’s ability to deliver of immigration policy? He doesn’t have a policy. It has been reported that the pacific solution won’t work again and that cost 2.5billion for most of them to end up in Australia or New Zealand anyway it won’t stem the boats. If he actually put something worthwhile as far as policy up i would agree but he hasn’t and he won’t

    • dovif says:

      08:37am | 08/09/11

      Nathan

      Pacific Solution cost $2.5 billion over 7 years, next year’s budget for Gillard’s Onshore processing is estimated to be $2 billion in 1 yeat

      As for Nauru, Nauru treated 1,100 detainee in its 7 years of operation, while there was 2,500 illegals who arrived in Australia just last year. Ie Nauru was working, it was Gillard’s rewrite of AS policy, that was the problem

    • LDLS says:

      09:12am | 08/09/11

      @Nathan…..for the millionth time 43% ended up in Australia.  The rest went back to their country of origin or a third country.

      Try to keep up and stop the lies.  Better still try doing your own research instead of believing the bull put out by your particular side.

    • Fred says:

      10:33am | 08/09/11

      And when the boats are stopped Nathan, your 2.5billion cry disappears up its own backside. Does not cost much to maintain empty detention centres which we effectively had befor Labor broke the solution. The only addition I would make to the LNP solution comes from NZ, “no papers, no access”.

    • Mouse says:

      10:33am | 08/09/11

      @Nathan, this “the Coalition don’t have anty policies” is getting a bit stale.  Who has reported that the Pacific Solution won’t work again?  Why won’t it work again? It certainly did under Howard. Maybe Abbott is offereing bipartisanship on this issue because he wants a policy that has proven to work put into place as quickly as possible. No deep, dark reason other than he wants a policy that will deter the boats and the risk to human life. It does stem the boats, the facts and figures are there if you bother to look.  It sounds like you have made up your mind already and it doesn’t matter what Abbott does anyway. So when gillard goes along with the Opposition and the policy is in place and working, you can shout about what a wonderful person she is. It doesn’t matter. What does matter is that a policy is in, as quickly as possible,  that stops the boats and potential deaths of men women and children.

    • Mattb says:

      11:16am | 08/09/11

      @LDLS

      ‘@Nathan…..for the millionth time 43% ended up in Australia.  The rest went back to their country of origin or a third country.’

      Just wondering if you have a credible source for this statement. The screeching fat banchee, sofie mirrabella, pulled this line out on QandA the other night and the other panelists said it was rubbish. Can you back up this claim???

      And I’m pretty sure, one of the ‘third countries’ you speak of, that took a great deal of the ‘rest’ of the asylum seekers from Nauru was New Zealand. And guess what you can do if you have a New Zealand passport/ residency…..

    • Andrew says:

      11:28am | 08/09/11

      The number of genuine refugees who were put through the Pacific Solution process was much lower than those who are currently seeking asylum. Only around 40% of Pacific Solution refugees were granted Australian Visas, another 30% went to other countries such as New Zealand (who have the right to settle in Australia) and another 30% were sent home.

      We paid new-zealand to take 30% of them, I would expect most of them now have moved here.

    • acotrel says:

      07:04am | 08/09/11

      ‘Enter a White Knight! Tony Abbott has stated that he is willing to discuss the matter with Julia Gillard, and attempt to achieve a bipartisan solution. ‘

      Tony Abbott should just face the fact that John Howard’s actions in relation to the Pacific Solution can never be vindicated ! The High Court decision over the application of the current Immigration Act proves that they were in contravention of the UNHCR agreement which we volutarily signed as a nation during the Menzies era. Offshore processing is finished, and we now have to find a win-win solution.  We really need to take a long hard look at the ‘pull factor’, and see if its actually so important to our border protection problems? If we start processing entirely within Australia, it could just be that the numbers of newcomers might not rise substantially above the current 3000 per year, which we can easily handle with our current programmes. Apparently there is currently a shortfall in numbers of Pacific Islanders accepting work in Australia ?  Perhaps we have a real need for extra workers for our lower skilled jobs ?

      Reply

    • Nilbog says:

      08:29am | 08/09/11

      @ acotrel

      You sound like someone who get’s taken advantage of easily… I like that.

      Want to go into business together? You put up the capital and I’ll run the thing and take care of the books… lol

    • Anna C says:

      08:45am | 08/09/11

      Alcotel, Tony Abbott was told during his briefing yesterday that Australia should expect approx 600 new asylum seekers reaching our shores every month. This is more than double your estimate.  He was also told that this influx had the potential to cause unrest in Australia similar to what has happened in Britain and Europe. 

      Also you “say that perhaps we need extra workers for our lower skilled jobs?” That would be fine if these asylum seekers were prepared to work, but according to the Department of Immigration’s own figures 80% of these asylum seekers are still unemployed and living off welfare payments even after 5 years. Now if the government could force these asylum seekers to work then that would not be an issue for many of us and some of us would even welcome increasing our refugee intake provided that they learned to adapt to our ways.

    • marley says:

      09:00am | 08/09/11

      You’re confusing migrants and refugees.  Two different issues.  We don’t process refugees based on labour market requirements.

    • Rick says:

      10:57am | 08/09/11

      JH’s actions stopped the boats, resulting in untold lives saved and stopped the economic refugees from queue jumping the honest people that were following the legal path. As to then bleeding heart cry that we could take more, etc, etc, the point is WE choose who comes into our country. If we need more people, I would sooner take them from a camp than as an illegal queue jumping economic refugee.

    • RyaN says:

      11:10am | 08/09/11

      @acotrel: what is disgusting acotrel is that you fully support people dying at sea. Have you no decency?

    • Peter says:

      11:34am | 08/09/11

      Rick:
      topped the economic refugees from queue jumping the honest people that were following the legal path

      We don’t stop them coming via plane and queue jumping. The decade of 2000 saw 60,000 asylum seekers, only 15,000 by boat, the rest via plane.

    • marley says:

      11:52am | 08/09/11

      @Peter - well no, we don’t stop them coming by plane.  However, we do demand a much higher standard of evidence to substantiate their refugee claims, which is why so many are refused and deported.

    • Peter says:

      12:12pm | 08/09/11

      @Peter - well no, we don’t stop them coming by plane.  However, we do demand a much higher standard of evidence to substantiate their refugee claims, which is why so many are refused and deported.

      So its ok for more to come via plane? They are not jumping the queue?

    • marley says:

      02:51pm | 08/09/11

      @Peter - no, of course it’s not okay - but far fewer of them get to stay, whereas most of the boat people do.  I have an issue with that.  You should too, if you think about it.

    • Mattb says:

      03:17pm | 08/09/11

      Ha, have a look the “bleeding heart” liberal voter RyaN, now it’s all about “saving the asylum seekers”. Pfft, whatever mate. It’s got nothing to do with “stopping the boats”, “breaking the people smuggler model” and “saving lives”. And don’t even bother bringing up the old “border protection” call, shit, lucky we don’t share a border with Mexico, some of the racists here wouldn’t be able to even sleep at night!. It’s all about votes, which party can look the most aggressive toward the issue and pandering to the racist bogan in the electorate.

      If it was simply about “saving lives” and breaking the “people smugglers market”, why not just open an Australian migration office in Indonesia, encourage the asylum seekers to go there, hand their $10000 over to our government and, every time there is enough numbers to fill an airliner, charter a flight to bring them to Australia. There, simple, no lives lost (unless the plane crashes), no dangerous boat voyage and no market for the people smugglers. Plus, the 10 grand can be held by the Aussie government and handed back once the asylum seeker is granted asylum to help finance the start of their new life here.

      But like I said, it’s got nothing to do with saving lives, thats just the catchcry our labor and liberal parties are using to make themselves look ‘caring’, its all about pandering to the racist vote. The Greens, love em or hate em, are the only party that holds the moral high ground in this issue, the only party that cares for these human beings. The labor and liberal party have both left their morals behind in the rush to the bottom.

      And I must take the opportunity to apologize to Clive Parmer, who I thought was a bit of a tosser, until Monday night on QandA. Under that big mining magnate, tough talking persona is a decent and caring Aussie bloke.

    • Peter says:

      04:09pm | 08/09/11

      @Peter - no, of course it’s not okay - but far fewer of them get to stay, whereas most of the boat people do.  I have an issue with that.  You should too, if you think about it.

      So you are saying that we apply a different set of rules for claiming asylum that depends on how they arrive?
      A lower percentage that come by plane are successful at applying for asylum as they fail the test.
      All you are proving is that those that come by boat are more likely to be a genuine asylum seeker.

    • Knemon says:

      05:47pm | 08/09/11

      @ MattB - Great comment, one of the best I’ve seen on this issue…keep at it.

    • TimB says:

      06:47pm | 08/09/11

      MattB, what about all the people stuck in refugee camps who’d *love* to come to Australia but don’t have the cash to get on a boat and come out? The people who have been waiting for *years* for applications to be approved?

      Why do you think people coming by boat should get preferential treatment than those in the camps? Do you think that boat people are somehow “better”?

      I have no problem with *who* is coming (so stop throwing up that strawman). I have every issue witho how they’re getting here. There are proper channels. They should be used.

    • RyaN says:

      10:37am | 09/09/11

      @Mattb: “why not just open an Australian migration office in Indonesia, encourage the asylum seekers to go there” there are assylum processing centers all over the world with many, many people awaiting their turn to be brought to Australia, unfortunately for them these queue jumping “refugees” don’t want to wait for that. This has always been the case so you trying to make out like its some racist plot is so pathetic it is laughable. Come back to reality mate or educate yourself on what you are speaking about.

    • Swinging Voter says:

      07:44am | 08/09/11

      I agree this isn’t bipartisanship, it’s an opportunity for Abbott to get legislation in place so he can continue with the “nauru policy’. Imagine if the the high court decision was left in place and NO legislation changes by the current government.
      Abbott and the coalition would be left in the untenable position of probably not sending anyone to Nauru and how would that make the coalition look?
      Wiley move Tony Abbott !

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:53am | 08/09/11

      @Swinging Voter

      ‘Wiley move Tony Abbott ! ‘

      The fact that Tony Abbott has even made this move proves that he well recognises the unethical aspects of the LNPs position and previous actions related to asylum seekers.  Ever since the High Court gave it’s decision that the asylum seekers have a right access Australian courts to be shown just cause for their imprisonment, both Abbott and Morrison have been up the creek without a paddle !  It’ll be very interesting in the next couple of days when those two start some really fancy footwork !
      - Well done, Julian Burnside - Jesus loves you !

    • gary says:

      10:42am | 08/09/11

      No acotrel, the Devil drives Julian Burnside to destroy our right to self determination of OUR country and the ability to control who breaches our boarders. Just because economic refugees decide to leave safe countries for a land of handouts does not give the UN the right to trample over our laws. These economic refugees even get better treatment nowadays than our own pensioners and mentally handicapped people.

    • acotrel says:

      11:36am | 08/09/11

      @Gary You obviously have a christian outlook on how your fellow human beings should be treated !

    • Gary says:

      12:28pm | 08/09/11

      Christianity may say turn the other check, charity, etc, but at the same time it does no advocate you allow a parasite to f*ck you over.

    • Mattb says:

      03:49pm | 08/09/11

      @Gary

      “These economic refugees even get better treatment nowadays than our own pensioners and mentally handicapped people.”

      Wow, another un-substantiated claim, got any evidence of this?, or is it something a bloke in the front bar told you over an arvo beer?. Saw it on ACA maybe?.

      But, I’ll play.

      So, basically what your saying Gary is you believe the government spends too much money on these refugees, thus, you would like them to spend less. Well, off-shore processing costs more than on-shore processing so I guess that means you’ll be all for the on-shore solution. Good to here gazza!. Shit, it might even mean the government can direct the savings straight to more funding for these pensioners and mentally handicapped that you seem to care so much about. Win-win eh gazza…..

    • Kipling says:

      07:44am | 08/09/11

      Magnanimous offer? Oh that was sarcasm.

      White Knight? Oh, that was sarcasm.

      Before I go further, was any of this serious?

      What is very clear, the outcome is irrelevent, immigration policy is naught more than a cynical political football. Our esteemed politicos demonstrate no care for either their constituents, asylum seekers or the interests of the country overall.

      What a sad state of affairs.

      It is now clear why sarcasm works best…

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:03am | 08/09/11

      There was a saying in Roman times - ‘I fear the Greeks bearing gifts’ ! Sorry Tony, it’s clearly just more of your silly bullshit.

    • Harry says:

      11:08am | 08/09/11

      There is a more current Australian saying that has been proven so many times it is now a hard fact, “Labor has the anti-Midas touch”. Abbott only needs to consider staying clear due to the level of incompetence and blame shifting that the Labor party exhibits.

    • TomZ says:

      12:39pm | 08/09/11

      Harry, I agree with you. Abbott should stand well clear of these blame shifting spivs. The Australian electorate will do its job at the first available opportunity.

    • thatmosis says:

      07:48am | 08/09/11

      Jooliar Gillrudd couldnt find the front door unless she was shown by the Greens and the Independants let alone find her way through the maze that she finds herself and the country in.
      Like it or lump it Howard had the right idea and it was the taking apart by the Labor Government of this process that has led to the explosion of boat people. Abbott has the upper hand and its going to be his way or no way as far as this crisis is concerned and Labor can wiggle like a worm on a hook but what other option do they have, the Greens open door policy which would turn this country into a safe haven for al and sundry or do nothing and have the same result.
        Im loving this a Jooliar and her morons come to the realisiation that their stance and policy is a complete and utter failure and they now are caught between a rock and a hard place. It makes my day, wiggle, wiggle ,wiggle.

      Reply

    • Holly says:

      08:01am | 08/09/11

      I think Tony Abbott could end up with egg on his face here.  It has been obvious for some time that processing on Nauru will be no more of a deterrent than processing on Christmas Island.  His only real objection to a regional solution and processing by UNHCR in Malaysia is that the Coalition did not think of this.  If he restricts his offer to support amending the Migration Act but only for Nauru or Manus Island then people should be able to see through his claytons offer.  He has been advised that Nauru will not stop the boats which is his stated policy.  If he holds out against processing in Malaysia what will be his reaction if the “bipartisan” solution fails and the boats keep coming. - will he urge the Prime Minister too install a “boat phone.”

      Reply

    • Dave says:

      10:27am | 08/09/11

      So the boats stopped. Wars continued and then as the worlds refugee problem declines in other countries Dillard and Rudd dismantled the working system the boats started. What more needs to be said. THE ALP f*cked as per usual.

    • Anna C says:

      11:27am | 08/09/11

      Holly, how can you possibly believe that processing asylum seekers on Naura would not be an effective deterrent? According to ABC journalist Chris Uhlmann’s interview with Chris Bowen on the 7.30 program on Tuesday night he asked “in the five years before you came to government, 288 people arrived by boat. Since 2008, 11,605 have arrived. So you changed something. The boats had effectively stopped.”

      http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/labor-policy-belongs-in-an-asylum/story-e6frezz0-1226131641573

      So how can anyone with a straight face possibly argue that John Howard’s Pacific Solution (with TPV) didn’t stop the boats?

    • Glen M says:

      11:57am | 08/09/11

      No holly the objection to the “malaysia solution” is not because the coallition didnt think of it , it is because it is an inhumane an ultimately impossible solution. Really no thinking person could have ever have believed that an Australian government could place unaccompanied minors on a boat back to malaysia. The Nauru solution was a tested solution which deliverd the desired outcome It has been proved to work.  Now we have a labor government that for year protested the howard offshore processing model and claimed it was inhumane only to come up with something more extreme. If Gillard actually had a spine she should use it to bend over and support the Abbott policy rather than playing petty politcs with an anything but Nauru solution simply because they didnt think of it first.

    • Andrew says:

      01:04pm | 08/09/11

      Anna C, i think it was along the lines that Indonesia would no longer accept boats being turned back.

      Once that part of the deterrent was removed, Nauru was just seen as a stepping stone to an Australian visa.

    • old fart says:

      08:03am | 08/09/11

      There is a bipartisanship here and that is neither major party are willing or truthful enough to stand up in front of the Australian people and be frank with them.  Our political leaders need to inform the people that we live in a world where there is conflict and injustice and regimes that threaten to and indeed do harm people that disgree with those regimes.

      What they then need to do is tell the Australian public that they are powerless to stop boats filled with people trying to escape persecution of any form and come to a country to raise their family in an environment that is safe.

      Before people say the pacific solution worked ,it didnt. It only allowed the government to sweep the arrivals out of our conciousness. The overwhelming majority of boat people that arrived during the pacific solution currently live in Australia.  They never stopped coming. If you believed they did, you are living in cloud cuckoo land because you were lied to by the spin doctors.

      Our political leaders also need to acknowledge that we face a greater problem from the people that come here with “all the necessary documentation” every day and don’t leave.  The number of people who overstay their visa with the intent to stay and work illegally is more than ten times greater the number which arrive by boat.  Off shore processing is far more expensive to you and I than processing in Australia. 

      I think it is time for our political leaders from both major parties to be truthful with us and stop treating us with the contempt and arrogance we have grown accustomed to

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      10:47am | 08/09/11

      @Old Fart
      ‘The overwhelming majority of boat people that arrived during the pacific solution currently live in Australia.  They never stopped coming. If you believed they did, you are living in cloud cuckoo land because you were lied to by the spin doctors.’

      Would the LNP deceive us?  Now why would they do that ?  There is range of options open to us after the 50 years that the problem of asylum seekers/border protection has existed.  One of them is to rescind our UNHCR signatory status, withdraw from the free market, and disassociate ourselves from the rest of the world.  Would that ‘stop the boats’ ?

    • centurion48 says:

      08:04am | 08/09/11

      The issue has become so serious that partisan politics is no longer appropriate. True leadership by both Gillard and Abbott would see them cooperate to devise a solution that incorporates (cost effective) deterrents as well as compassion and adherence to the guardianship responsibilities of the Immigration Minister.
      Will it happen? I doubt it because Australian politicians put ‘point scoring’ and gaining (or staying in) power above the national interest.
      The only catalyst that might get them to work together is their shared hatred of the Greens and the fear that they will extract even more concessions regarding on-shore processing that will only exacerbate the boat problem.

      Reply

    • Super D says:

      08:06am | 08/09/11

      How long until “White Knight” is considered racist?

      Reply

    • adam says:

      10:11am | 08/09/11

      At around 08:05am this morning Supes

    • acotrel says:

      10:51am | 08/09/11

      @SuperD
      I suppose referring to Cheetah, the star of the Tarzan movies will be touted to infringe animal rights ?

    • Brenda says:

      08:17am | 08/09/11

      If they change the laws to enable a Malaysian people-swap agreement, Australians will still reject the 4 for 1 ratio, but might (temporarily) accept 2 for 1, but even then only until the boats permanently cease their people dumping trade.

      TPV’s were also a disincentive as they warned that visitors would be sent home when our government deemed it safe for their return. Offshore processing prevented free access to the highest courts in our costly legal system - something that Australian citizens are denied.

      Social unrest is predicted. This is a small country with a limited taxpayer base and there’s already over-expectations on our hardest working achievers who are required to pay more and more of their income to subsidise expensive services for the less motivated in our communities and those paying their way in. People earning a combined $150K do not consider themselves rich enough to carry increasing costs of smuggled people, carbon tax, flood tax, loss of private hospital rebate, and on it goes. Disillusion and penalty for early life sacrifices wrecks human incentive to prosper. Their only retreat is to Labor where socialist hand-outs then buy the votes of those aspirational citizens who have been brought to heel.

      People running from Indonesia has become a regular reminder of the increasing demands on the pockets of our hardest working citizens.
      The Gillard-Rudd outfit’s chaotic policy on this issue will be the last straw. Just wait until the boats really kick in.  The long-feared London/European social unrest will be a reality and the Gillard Labor Government with its idiot, careless and costly policy failures will feel no shame in having facilitated the doomed multi-cultural mess that so many of us have long wanted to avoid, and which is already happening in various pockets around our country.

      Our isolation should be our salvation. No-one gave a stuff about Australia until opportunists discovered that our borders are wide open to abuse and that Centrelink, courtesy of our working achievers, also has an open door policy.

      Reply

    • Anna C says:

      11:49am | 08/09/11

      I totally agree with you Brenda. Something has got to give because we just can’t keep going the way that we are. The last thing we taxpayers need is even more people rorting our welfare system. Isn’t it enough that already 42% of Australian families pay no net tax?  http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=9607

      Now all these bleeding hearts are telling us to open our doors to even more asylum seekers who have no intention of working and paying taxes. We as a country should be increasing our tax base not reducing it. There is just so much that we taxpayers can endure. I think the government should force asylum seekers to get jobs by billing them for their time in detention.

    • jf says:

      08:20am | 08/09/11

      The “Kernohan affidavit” is circulating throught he emails of corporate Australia.

      It is damning on Gillard and her involvement in the AWU fraud.

      What I can’t understand is why the independents, who must have seen this document, would support any government that had Gillard as a member let alone leader.

      Reply

    • DB says:

      01:17pm | 08/09/11

      Given her shrewd political manipulation we have seen to date to achieve the position of PM, one would have to have no brain to believe she had at the very least no suspicions of wrong doing, let alone total ignorance.

    • BobM says:

      03:41pm | 08/09/11

      The ‘Independents” have been very, very quiet lately…....

    • jack says:

      08:33am | 08/09/11

      The truth is its about time Julia gave in to Abbott and use Nauru (some people say why)
      let him and Morrison have egg all over there faces because Nauru will not stop the boats

      Reply

    • Jim says:

      10:51am | 08/09/11

      Abbott won’t be silly enough to accept Nauru by it’s self. The reality is there were a number of layers to stopping the queue jumpers and unless all are there the solution will fail. The question is has Gillard’s stupidity damaged our relationship with Indonesia to the point that the complete solution can be implemented.

    • Catching up says:

      08:59am | 08/09/11

      Can some one tell me why Mr. Howard’s and now Mr. Abbott’s policy of turning the boats back to where they came from, is different from putting the same people on a plane, back to the same places.

      Only difference is that there is no danger of a boat sinking and others will have the opportunity come in their places.

      Mr. Abbott is offering a package as an option.  Nauru, turning the boats back and TPV’s.

      Reply

    • Murray says:

      09:17am | 08/09/11

      We don’t need offshore processing. We need a tough policy of turning the illegals boats around,no permission to land under any circumstances. Howard did it, why can’t Gillard.

      Reply

    • Time for a change says:

      09:32am | 08/09/11

      Catalina Robayo would make a far better immigration minister than Mr Bowen. With her proven ability to cross all political, cultural and ethnic divides she would solve this mess and inject an infectious positivity into the multicultural debate. I believe this would lead to an overwhelming community acceptance of people from other lands joining us here in the Lucky Country and drive a bipartisan approach by politicians toward on-shore processing of refugees and their rapid assimilation into our society.. My only concern would be the risk of Ms Robayo passing on her fashion sense to the PM.

      Reply

    • Not Legally Binding says:

      09:57am | 08/09/11

      I’m curious as to this interpretation that Nauru is somehow off the table by the High Court’s ruling. Thankfully the High Court have put up a summary http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2011/hca32-2011-08-31.pdf

      “The Minister cannot validly declare a country (as a country to which asylum seekers can be taken for processing) unless that country is *legally bound* to meet three criteria. The country must be legally bound by international law or its own domestic law to:
      1. provide access for asylum seekers to effective procedures for assessing their need for protection;
      2. provide protection for asylum seekers pending determination of their refugee status;
      3. and provide protection for persons given refugee status pending their voluntary return to their country of origin or their resettlement in another country.
      [...]
      the Court held that Malaysia is not legally bound to provide the access and protections the Migration Act requires for a valid declaration”

      Clause 16 of the Malaysian Agreement plainly states the deal is “not legally binding”. Surprise, surprise. A “non-legally binding” agreement made with Malaysia turns out to be… Non-legally binding… and now for how that compares with Nauru (in the full judgement available online http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html )

      “the arrangements made with Nauru were very different from those that are now in issue [...] it was Australia, not the receiving country, that was to provide the access and protections in question. Further, although the arrangement between Australia and Nauru was recorded in a very short document, the better view of that document may be that it created obligations between the signatory states.”

      The short answer is we have an incompetent Government that can’t get their legals right.

      Reply

    • Ray says:

      10:10am | 08/09/11

      Why have we got a woman running this country?

      She spends most of the time refuting Tony Abbot’t's proposals.

      Well Julia lesson one:

              You are running the country and Tony Abbott’s proposals mean SFA.
              Your position should be - I’m running the country Tony Abbott is not   My proposals are real and Mr Abbott’s are irrelevent.

            Not a leaders bootlace.

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      10:41am | 08/09/11

      There are two simple ways of stopping the arrival of the country shoppers and putting people smugglers out of business.

      1. Australia provides Indonesia with $1billion of aid each year. We must tell them that in future for every country shopper who leaves their shores for Australia an amount equivalant to the expected cost of processing them here will be deducted from this aid.

      2. The UN Refugee convention must be changed so that no assylum seeker is ever resettled in the country in which they lodge their claim.

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      11:11am | 08/09/11

      I would add a rule from New Zealand, if you have no papers you are barred from access.

    • RyaN says:

      11:12am | 08/09/11

      @Peter: may I say that I love your proposals, you should really put these ideas forward to your MP. Great stuff!

    • Ray says:

      11:55am | 08/09/11

      Any NZda shoukd have to bring a good looking sheep with them as China’s got all our merinoes now. NZda’s get on well with, and are very faithful, to their sheep.

    • marley says:

      11:56am | 08/09/11

      @Peter - re point 2.  So, would this mean that we get to send our 5000 asylum seekers to Canada, and they get to send their 25,000 here?  You see, the problem with your idea is that we get fewer refugees than just about any western country - so, if we start to do proper burden sharing, we’d end up taking in more from elsewhere than we’d be shipping out.

    • Sid says:

      01:25pm | 08/09/11

      Marley, you need to stop and smell the crap you’re pushing. The only reason that the Europeans and Canadian have so many refugees is their ease of access by the difficulty to defend their boarders to the economic refugee’s country shopping for the best benefits. The amount of social discourse created is horrific and we should than our lucky stars that it is a bit harder for them to get here.

    • marley says:

      01:51pm | 08/09/11

      @Sid - you missed my point entirely.  Peter is talking about revising the Convention so that countries accept each others’ refugees.  So if Canada takes 25,000 under its rules, and Australia takes 5000 under ours, according to Peter’s plan, we would then be obliged to accept theirs, and they to accept ours.  Alternatively, we might hold firm and just trade 5000 refugees - but what’s the advantage in doing that?

      As for defending the borders, well, congratulations, you’ve realized that islands find it much easier to keep people out than countries with land borders do, and that therefore the asylum issue is quite a small can of worms here, compared to countries with people walking across land borders en masse.

    • Peter says:

      02:05pm | 08/09/11

      Marley, No it wouldn’t. Each country that currently accepts refugees would continue to do so at their current numbers. In Australia’s case I understand that is 13,000 annually. Under the current system this number is reduced by the number of country shoppers who have the resources to pay people smugglers to get them here. Under my system the whole 13,000 we accept would come from those found to ge genuine who lodged their claims in other countries.

    • OchreBunyip says:

      11:07am | 08/09/11

      Both sides of government have whipped up such a frenzy of anti-asylum seeker fear and hatred that no solution is going to end up being acceptable. Such a small proportion of our total asylum seeker intake and such emotion and attention diverted to it because it can be sensationalised.

      Those people who claim the asylum seekers are “shopping” for a country and bypassing others, consider if it were your family. Would you stop in those closer, oppressive countries or would you strike out for Australia? Are the suitably hygienic asylum seekers who come by aeroplane somehow better for Australia than those who spends days in a dangerous boat making for our territorial waters?

      Sometimes government has to do what is right, even when a minority of the populace are blinded by rhetoric and false information. Unfortunately the government is not doing the right thing either and is using the refugees as political footballs.

      Reply

    • Anna C says:

      12:03pm | 08/09/11

      “Those people who claim the asylum seekers are “shopping” for a country and bypassing others, consider if it were your family. Would you stop in those closer, oppressive countries or would you strike out for Australia?”

      So what are you advocating OchreBunyip, that we should just welcome all asylum seekers with open arms regardless of the fact that they have chosen to bypass more suitable countries like Indonesia, Malaysia (same religion and values) to come here? Even blind Freddy knows that the reason that they want to come here is because of our high standard of living and overly generous welfare system. So what do you think we should do once this trickle of asylum seekers becomes a flood? Who’s going to pay for your asylum seeker utopia?

    • old fart says:

      12:37pm | 08/09/11

      blind freddy doesnt see that the boat people are but a dribble, 2009 -2010 in excess of 20000 visa over stayers not caught. you are all looking in the wrong place. At least boat people arrive here openly and honestly state their purpose. Why isnt the government or opposition addressing or asking questions about visa over stayers?

    • OchreBunyip says:

      12:38pm | 08/09/11

      AnnaC why do you assume they will be on welfare? Consider the other ‘floods’ of refugees we’ve had in the past…are the majority of Vietnamese people on welfare? Before them are the majority of British, Italian, Greek or South African people living in Australia on welfare? But of course a lot of these people came by aeroplane and thus are the right “sort” of refugees we want, not some person in a boat we can demonise and vilify without even meeting.

      If you think our welfare system is overly generous then why not campaign against it? Why use people who are trying to find a safe place to have a life as your target?

    • Kiddo says:

      01:23pm | 08/09/11

      Just on the issue of boat asylum seekers staying on welfare - most of them seem to be from minimal educational backgrounds with little no or knowledge of english. On being re-settled here, the biggest obstacle to them finding meaningful employment is language barrier and\or lack of australian equivalent qualifications. This would explain why many are still on welfare.

      I have heard of former refugees who just don’t bother to look for jobs and I’ve heard of former refugees who desperate to work but get knocked back time and time again becuase of the language\skill factor. While the government does provide english language and other res-settlement programs it doesn’t seem to be adequate. I believe we need to address that.

      The ones who want to bludge our dole system are no different from Shaz and Baz and their 5 kids from different partners. For those former refugees (and our own inbred welfare receipients), we need a tighter welfare payment system.

    • Anna C says:

      02:21pm | 08/09/11

      “Anna C why do you assume they will be on welfare?”

      OchreBunyip, I’m not assuming anything here. This is the reality. DIAC’s own report shows more than 83.5% of Refugee & Humanitarian Migrants are on Benefits after 5 years and less than a third of these people have a job. I’m talking about income support payments like the unemployment benefit and pensions not just income supplement payments such as Family Tax Benefits etc. http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/05/diac-report-shows-more-than-80-of-refugee-humanitarian-migrants-on-benefits-after-5-years.html

      They are becoming a drain on our economy and society. What is the point in importing more dole bludgers when we have enough of our own home-grown variety.

    • Anna C says:

      02:40pm | 08/09/11

      Kiddo I agree with you. Once these asylum seekers/refugees are allowed to stay here I have no problems with the government spending money on them to ensure they can speak the language and have suitable training/qualifications to get actual jobs.

      What I object to is our lax welfare system which allows these people to just do nothing and claim benefits. No one is saying it is entirely their fault. Successive governments have a lot to answer because they have created a welfare system which has become a way of life for some people instead of the temporary safety net which is was supposed to be. 

      I want people in this country who intend to better themselves by working, paying taxes and making a good life for themselves. I don’t want people who will only be a financial and social drain on our society.

    • gra gra says:

      03:12pm | 08/09/11

      @Anna C. You are a lovely lady. You aren’t related to Bronwyn Bishop, are you?
      Anthony Abbott, (aka John Howard), has reached out to help the Labor Party resolve this problem. To help Julia Gillard in her quest to remain Prime Minister. Isn’t that wonderful of him.
      I think, that in the true tradition of the catholic church, he has decided to defy his mentor, JWH, and give safe and secure sanctuary to the children whose parents have decided to seek to improve their lot. That’s what the catholic church has done, historically, isn’t it? “Suffer little children to come unto me”.
      Try this. Abbott the prince of opportunism, (Howard is the king), suggests that Australia sets up a clearing office in Afghanistan, Iraq, et al, and allows refugees wishing to flee for religous, political, or, (yes!) economic reasons. Gillard says OK and the problem is, at least partly resolved. Anyone who who comes here from an area with these “clearing stations’ in place is simply sent back.
      Once this situation is made clear, with ‘on the spot’ immigration officials to clarify matters semi-locally, the word will get around. Pay the people smugglers if you will but make sure you are prepared to do a round trip.
      At the moment there are many areas from which many immigrants, (they are not ‘illegals’), come from which are not serviced by Australia or Canada or NZ, and to suggest that these people seek sanctuary in Indonesia, or Malaysia, (a bit of the frying pan and the fire comes to mind), is hardly anything but inhumane.
      We gave thousands of our finest to help the British, the Vietnamese. the Sth Koreans, the Iraqis, the Afghanistans, to presumably have a better life. And now we whinge and moan, in the now Australian fashion, to give a leg-up to those who come to us. Vale the Aussie tradition. Vale the ‘Aussie’. 
      I am nothing, if not ashamed.

    • Anna C says:

      03:16pm | 08/09/11

      Kiddo, I agree with you. Once these asylum seekers/refugees are allowed to stay here I have no problems with the government spending money on them to ensure they can speak the language and have suitable training/qualifications to get actual jobs. What I object to is our lax welfare system which allows these people to just do nothing and claim benefits. No one is saying it is entirely their fault. Successive governments have a lot to answer because they have created a welfare system which has become a way of life for some people instead of the temporary safety net which is was supposed to be. 

      I want people in this country who intend to better themselves by working, paying taxes and making a good life for themselves. I don’t want people who will only be a financial and social drain on our society.

    • ochreBunyip says:

      05:26pm | 08/09/11

      @AnnaC I notice the article makes the link that, somehow, are borders are threatened because refugees find it difficult to obtain employment once they are accepted in Australia. What they mean is we don’t want to pay for them. Why not campaign for these refugees to have work experience placements, English lessons and so on? Ensure that those that are accepted have access to programmes so they can become tax payers.

    • Ray says:

      11:50am | 08/09/11

      I forgot to add; after removing the illegal immigrants from the boats sink each and every such boat that enters Australian waters.

      Smugglers will shop elsewhere then. We’ll take legit refugees.

      Wish the UN a Happy Christmas. The UN is not a country, merely a rabble conceived with good intent after WWII. Past it’s relevence

      Reply

    • Ray says:

      11:59am | 08/09/11

      For Super D @8.30am.

      ‘White Knight’ will be considered racist when White Lady Funerals is considered sexist and racist. Meanwhile!

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      12:26pm | 08/09/11

      Marley, No it wouldn’t. Each country that currently accepts refugees would continue to do so at their current numbers. In Australia’s case I understand that is 13,000 annually. Under the current system this number is reduced by the number of country shoppers who have the resources to pay people smugglers to get them here. Under my system the whole 13,000 we accept would come from those found to ge genuine who lodged their claims in other countries.

      Reply

    • red dog says:

      02:58pm | 08/09/11

      Julia Gillard is human perfection with excellence in mind, beauty and personality. She is sexy, spunky, and beautiful.
      She will be Prime Minister Of Australia for the next twenty years.
      Labor will rule Australia until 2035.

      Reply

    • red dog says:

      03:02pm | 08/09/11

      Only Tory looks for “What I call Bull Shit” now . 
      Julia is sick of looking out for the Coalition!!

      Reply

    • red dog says:

      03:13pm | 08/09/11

      If Julia Gillard or Julia Bishop is up the creek without a paddle, then Tony Abbott is up the pub without a paddle pop

      Reply

    • gra gra says:

      05:45pm | 08/09/11

      You are horrible, red dog. Tony is a christian, and a catholic one at that. How dare you suggest that he eats paddle pops. Drink the blood of some rebel who may or may not have lived a couple of thousand years ago, and eat his flesh, yes. But paddle pops?
      You really are awful!

      Reply

    • LON says:

      07:14pm | 08/09/11

      Indonesia does not get mentioned much lately,but didn’t the boats start off from that country?. There does not seem to be much sustained pressure being applied at the source of this corrupt trade and it’s easy to suspect that some long term pay back politics are involved with this stealthy demonstration of how vulnerable Australian shores really are. Australia is right to be careful with Indonesia and probably prefer their border protection policy of stopping the boats to the sustained political fallout resulting from any loss of face for their closest neighbours. Accepting illegal immigration is accepting an open door policy, this will be seen as a soft capitulation by those less interested in human rights ,if border controls are eased legal immigration will have to become less restrictive as far as any future applicants are concerned,especially from our Asia region. Ultimately Australia will be merged into Asia and will loose its european image to the multicultural melting pot that surrounds it. Social change happens as a consequence of migratory movement between nations in times of stress so this is only the beginning.

      Reply

    • chuck says:

      08:00am | 09/09/11

      @LON yeap strange that Indonesia and other “ports"of call on the people exodus to the land of milk and honey seem so porous. You should try going there without valid papers or no money. We still hand out $‘s and aid to these places by the plane load. They must reckon that we are really stupid. Strange that these illegal immigrants don’t try for Japan and Stk Korea where the standard of living is high. The sycophants and self interested few that cling to the UNHCR as the reason for not having standards for border protection are no better than 5th columnists or social behavioural change agents. We should be sending contraceptives to these countries of origin as it is obvious at least to me that their governments have lost their will to do anything to control the destruction of their eco systems and the “cultural” need to multiply willy nilly without consequence.

      Reply

    • PC plod says:

      12:18pm | 11/09/11

      The international law should state that refugees MUSt flee to the CLOSEST nation ratifying UN laws. They should not be able to bypass other countries and come to Australia if it’s not the closest country to their ‘oppression’. Fleeing to countries taht have welfare payment isn’t fleeing oppression it’s trying to get a free ride off of taxpayers of a country you weren’t even born in.

      Reply

    • Kaedon says:

      01:13pm | 15/10/11

      Whoveer edits and publishes these articles really knows what they’re doing.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 25 May 12 10:37PM

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 10:00PM

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:58PM

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:52PM

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

by Claire Mallinson

14

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

by The Punch Team

50

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

by Tory Maguire

121

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed